*cringe* I really hate to double post and mean no ill to pSycHoticHicKen personally but the argument “Speech is not a part of sapience. A lot of automated phone systems use speech and can process spoken input.” is invalid too. The point may be; it is easy to imagine a sapient being with no method of communicating. However; just because a nonsapient system (say a computer), can beform an action (say performing a logical operation), it implies nothing about said action being or not being a requirement of sapience.

The Sphinx (I wonder if the plural is like sheep). Sphinx usually have a question that must be answered correctly or the traveler’s life is forfeit. In Neverending story, didn’t they just sense the worthiness of the traveler?

Regardless, there should be some bones laying around if this were a testing statue.

Now perhaps it is like the current discussions of the pyramids where they are thought to be power stations (like Alex’s sword’s abilities).

Sentient or sapient?
Sentient – Able to perceive or feel things.
Sapient – Wise, or attempting to appear wise; intelligent.

Normally I would not be raising the question and being a word troll, but since Dreamland Chronicles has a wide audience inclusive of kids, it would be awesome for them to actually learn the right word.

Not really a massive deal. The concepts of Sapience, Sentience, Intelligence, and Conciousness are tricky and not even well defined.
In point: The “Turing Test” which is designed to test if a machine is intelligent, really only tests if a machine can mimic a human. “Pure” intelligence is just too hard a concept to test for.

I blame Star Trek and other popular sci-fi for screwing up the definition of sentient/sapient. I made the same mistake a lot until someone corrected me, and I went to look it up for myself (’cause I never assume some random stranger getting all grammar nazi on me is right). Now I make an effort to always use “sapient” even if I know other people will get confused. I’m takin’ it back, people!